Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

STOP, You’re on Camera: The Evidentiary Admissibility and Probative Value of Digital Records in Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Synergy of Community Policing and Technology

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Criminology ((BRIEFSPOLICI))

Abstract

Under the rule of law, the punishment of an accused is possible only when his or her guilt is proven before the judiciary in accordance with legal safeguards including the rules of evidence law. Digital community policing systems—mobile device policing applications and associated networks and servers—collect, transmit and store digital records relevant to violations of law, which can be used by law enforcement agencies as tips to collect further evidence and by prosecutors to prove the guilt of the accused. These digital records must meet the law requirements with regard to the admissibility and probative value of evidence: relevance, legality, authenticity and reliability. Therefore, digital community policing systems should have measures that: (1) enable the identification of the source of the digital records and the time, date and location of their creation; (2) protect the digital records from alteration, manipulation or damage during the collection, transmission or storage; (3) ensure that the digital records are what they purport to be and (4) verify whether the digital records have suffered any omissions.

This chapter is based on the research done for the Citizen Interaction Technologies Yield Community Policing (CITYCoP) project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 653811.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allegrezza, S. (2010). Critical remarks on the green paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one member state to another and securing its admissibility. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 9, 569–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, J. C. (2004). Forensic science: An illustrated dictionary. London: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. S. D. (2015). Investigating and prosecuting cyber crime: Forensic dependencies and barriers to justice. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 9, 55–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buisman, C., Bouazdi, M., & Costi, M. (2010). Principles of civil law. In K. A. A. Khan, C. Buisman, & C. Gosnell (Eds.), Principles of evidence in international criminal justice (pp. 7–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T. H. C., & Conte, M. (2014). Terry stops, anonymous tips, and driving under the influence: A study of Illinois law. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 45, 1143–1193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, J., & Marx, G. (2011). Technological innovations in crime prevention and policing. A review of the research on implementation and impact. Cahiers Politiestudies Jaargang, 20, 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers and the internet. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaski, C. E. (2005). Who’s at the keyboard? Authorship attribution in digital evidence investigations. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 4, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. E. (1942). The function of law in a democratic society. University of Chicago Law Review, 9, 393–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubord, P. (2008). Investigating cybercrime. In J. J. Barbara (Ed.), Handbook of digital and multimedia forensic evidence (pp. 77–89). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duranti, L. (1995). Reliability and authenticity: The concepts and their implications. Archiv, 39, 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frase, R. S. (1990). Comparative criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: How do the French do it, how can we find out and why should we care? California Law Review, 78, 539–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giova, G. (2011). Improving chain of custody in forensic investigation of electronic digital systems. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 11, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gless, S. (2010). Truth or due process? The use of illegally gathered evidence in the criminal trial. In J. Basedow, U. Kischel, & U. Sieber (Eds.), German National Reports to the 18th International Congress of Comparative Law (pp. 675–709). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, J. (2005). French criminal justice: A comparative account of the investigation and prosecution of crime in France. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Insa, F. (2007). The admissibility of electronic evidence in court: Fighting against high-tech crime. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice, 1, 285–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, A., & McKeown, P. (2016). The modern law of evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, O. S. (2001). Computer records and the Federal Rules of evidence. United States Attorneys’ USA Bulletin, 49, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuntze, N., et al. (2012). On the creation of reliable digital evidence. In G. Peterson & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Advances in digital forensics (pp. 3–17). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Reform Commission. (2009). Documentary and electronic evidence. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpdocumentaryandelectronicevidence.pdf

  • Leroux, O. (2004). Legal admissibility of electronic evidence. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 18, 193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Y. (1999). Comparative analysis of exclusionary rules in the United States, England, France, Germany, and Italy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 22, 280–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuade, S. (2006). Technology-enabled crime, policing and security. Journal of Technology Studies, 32, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice. (2008). Electronic crime scene investigation: A guide for first responders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nzjboer, J. F. (2000). Methods of investigation and exclusion of evidence: A comparative and interdisciplinary perspective. In J. F. Nijboer & W. J. J. M. Sprangers (Eds.), Harmonisation in forensic expertise (pp. 431–446). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattenden, R. (2009). Authenticating ‘Things’ in English law: Principles for adducing tangible evidence in common law jury trials. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 12, 273–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradel, J. (2000). Criminal evidence. In J. F. Nijboer & W. J. J. M. Sprangers (Eds.), Harmonisation in forensic expertise: An inquiry into the desirability of and opportunities for international standards (pp. 411–429). Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, G. W. (1962). Administration of criminal justice in France: An introductory analysis. Louisiana Law Review, 23, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. (1990). The admissibility and authentication of computer evidence-a confusion of issues. Computer Law & Security Report, 6, 13–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rengel, A. (2013). Privacy in the 21st century. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rentschler, C. A. (2016). Technologies of Bystanding: Learning to see like a Bystander. In S. Pearl (Ed.), Images, ethics, technology (pp. 15–40). New York: Rutledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shifrin, O. S. (1991). Fourth amendment--protection against unreasonable search and seizure: The inadequacies of using an anonymous tip to provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 760–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solon, M., & Harper, P. (2004). Preparing evidence for court. Digital Investigation, 1, 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sopinka, J. (1999). The law of evidence in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stannard, G. M. (2015). The Liar and the Loophole: Corporate character evidence and impeachment. Brooklyn Law Review, 81, 239–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, J. (1886). A digest of the law of evidence. London: William Clowes & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, J. (1898). A preliminary treatise on evidence at the common law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co..

    Google Scholar 

  • The Law Commission. (1995). Evidence in criminal proceedings: Hearsay and related topics. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, L. L. (2013). Mobile devices new challenges for admissibility of electronic evidence. The SciTech Lawyer, 9, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillers, P., & Schum, D. (1991). A theory of preliminary fact investigation. Davis Law Review, 24, 931–1012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948, December 10). United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Res 217 A (III).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. H. (1942). The American law institute code of evidence rules: A dissent. American Bar Association Journal, 28, 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. (1998). Do we really need the federal rules of evidence? North Dakota Law Review, 74, 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. C. (1931). The French Court of Assizes. American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 22, 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private Law, College of Law, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, UAE

    Saleh Al-Sharieh

  2. Department of Transboundary Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Jeanne Mifsud Bonnici

Authors
  1. Saleh Al-Sharieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeanne Mifsud Bonnici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saleh Al-Sharieh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Greek Ministry of Interior, Center for Security Studies (KEMEA), Athens, Greece

    Georgios Leventakis

  2. City University of New York, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA

    M. R. Haberfeld

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Al-Sharieh, S., Bonnici, J.M. (2019). STOP, You’re on Camera: The Evidentiary Admissibility and Probative Value of Digital Records in Europe. In: Leventakis, G., Haberfeld, M. (eds) Synergy of Community Policing and Technology. SpringerBriefs in Criminology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00299-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00299-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00298-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00299-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation